Science tells us that matter/energy may be pixels of information

The evidence tells us that matter and energy are like pixels on the computer screen. Materialist "believe" that the pixels on the screen have an objective reality but they don't. Matter and energy is like play dough for information to manifest.

It looks like our universe is the projection of a real universe which I will call RU from now on.

This is also why people have trouble grasping parallel universes. They look at it from a materialist point of view but these universes are just projections of RU just like this website is a projection of the program and the pixels on the screen allow that information to manifest.

We know our universe is simulated because of things like Black Hole Thermodynamics and the Holographic bound.

What this tells us is that information about matter is not found in it's volume which we will call A, but in a 2-D surface area 1/4 the size of A. This doesn't make sense to materialist but it makes sense if the universe is a simulation of RU. Jacob Bekenstein said this:

Bekenstein summarizes that "Thermodynamic entropy and Shannon entropy are conceptually equivalent: the number of arrangements that are counted by Boltzmann entropy reflects the amount of Shannon information one would need to implement any particular arrangement..." of matter and energy. The only salient difference between the thermodynamic entropy of physics and the Shannon's entropy of information is in the units of measure; the former is expressed in units of energy divided by temperature, the latter in essentially dimensionless "bits" of information, and so the difference is merely a matter of convention.

The holographic principle states that the entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to surface area and not volume; that volume itself is illusory and the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on the surface of its boundary.

The physical universe is widely seen to be composed of "matter" and "energy". In his 2003 article published in Scientific American magazine, Jacob Bekenstein summarized a current trend started by John Archibald Wheeler, which suggests scientists may "regard the physical world as made of information, with energy and matter as incidentals." Bekenstein quotes William Blake and questions whether the Holographic principle implies that seeing "the world in a grain of sand," could be more than "poetic license".

en.wikipedia.org...

Our universe has probably been rebooted over and over again and we call this the big bang.

We can also look at quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics tells us that the universe is a wave of probabilities. This can also tie into a computer analogy. Take this website. It doesn't exist when it's not being observed. The information is stored on the server then when the web address is accessed the pixels on the screen project the information stored on the server.

So you can look at space-time as the server of the universe. Space-time contains the information of all configurations of matter and energy(pixels). When the observer makes a choice or decoherence occurs in nature, the information stored on the server(space-time) is accessed and is projected and can be seen through matter and energy(pixels).

You also have people like Seth Lloyd at M.I.T. (the universe is a quantum computer or Stephen Wolfram(cellular automata) talking about computation and the universe.

RU contains the information of every possible state. RU could be a real universe, Heaven or a sea of quantum fluctuations. There might be one multi-dimensional RU or there are many RU's that project even more universes.

There's no evidence that matter exists. When you touch a hard table or a soft pillow it's just the electrons from your hand that repel against the electrons from the table or pillow and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow. So it goes even further if Craig Hogan from Fermilab is correct.

Cosmologist Craig Hogan is proposing that the universe is a hologram made of tiny grains, or pixels, of space-time.

According to the holographic principle as envisioned by Craig Hogan, each grain of information encoded on a surface becomes larger when seen by an observer a great distance away, just as the graininess inherent in a movie is magnified when projected onto a big screen.

www.sciencenews.org...

So at small scales space-time is grainy and pixelated and at large scales it looks smooth and continuous. Like these pictures.

www.opticalillusion.net...
www.sciencenews.org...

So matter would be an illusion of resolution.

I can't wait to read the results of the experiments that will confirm or deny Hogans theories.

So in order for this theory to work means we have to acknowledge that an observer needs to be present and that means that the universe itself is the observer and it has to be intelligent in order for all those bits not to run amok and that life as we know it is an extension of that same observer manipulating all the bits......

this is fascinating BUT isn't this kind of like a a religious person pushing origins on to a god? I mean, nothing is solved, just pushed further back/away.

I'm quite amazed at some of the things science proposes and yet ridicules anyone for having belief in a god.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

It looks like our universe is the projection

This is a theory that seems to be very popular in recent years, but personally I've yet to see any explanation for it that doesn't come across as hand waving.

I invite anyone to explain it to me.

the universe is a wave of probabilities.
It doesn't exist when it's not being observed.

Ok. I have no problem with that. Though to me it seems somewhat semantic. I conceive of reality as "that which is observed." If I have an experience, it is by definition real. If I perceive that experience as being a table, for example, then by definition, that table is real. This seems like the only meaning for reality that is both interally consistent and functional without making massive arbitrary assumptions. I have no way of knowing if anything outside my observation exists or not. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But how would I know? By definition I can't, because I'm not observing it. On the other hand, things that I do observe, I can't know if the nature of my observation is an interaction with some sort of external, or simply an experience. Assuming one way or another is simply assumption. I can't know for certain the nature of my experience. All I can know for certain is that I'm having an experience. That's all I have to work with.

I see no other basis for a definition of "reality" that doesn't make all sorts of assumptions.

There's no evidence that matter exists.

Ok. But there's plenty of evidence that experience exists. I have an experience. I observe it. Rationalizing experience as interaction with external "matter" is merely one possible interpretation of that experience. But so is rationalizing that we're "in the matrix" or that "it's a hologram" etc.

Why is the rationalization of experience as a hologram more useful, more descriptive of the experience than rationalizing it as interaction with external matter, or rationalizing it as simply a hallucinatory experience by an observer?

How is saying it's a hologram not an assumption?

When you touch a hard table or a soft pillow it's just the electrons from your hand that repel against the electrons from the table or pillow and you perceive a hard table or a soft pillow.

WAIT!

You just implied that there's no matter. And then you turn around and imply that you have a hand and that there are electrons.

Make up your mind. Which is it?

[edit on 16-6-2010 by LordBucket]

This kind of stuff is all too funny.

The contradictions of these posts is enough to make my head spin.

Do you really think the mysteries of the universe are supposed to be solved?

It's fun to ponder, but hey, if we knew these ultimate truths, the experience of life would be quite dull.

Ya know, there's more theories out there than individuals, because each of us is but a theory to one another.

Let's just keep it at: We know that we know not, shall we?

At least, this is what works best for me.

You guys can ponder the paradoxes all you want, but in the end, I think you're just wasting time.

So if I could some how trick my brain into believe there is no wall then I will be able to run through it?

I like the idea of this holographic/projected universe, however I just can't wrap my head around it.

reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

I like the idea of this holographic/projected
universe, however I just can't wrap my head around it.

In my case, I just don't understand what they're trying to say. We've never known what "matter" is. Describing it as "little balls of stuff" doesn't change anything, because nobody knows what "stuff" is.

Saying that it's a hologram, or an illusion, or "not real" doesn't change anything either. It's just saying "Hey! You know that stuff that you don't know what it is that you think you're experiencing? Well, it's not really stuff! It just looks like stuff!"

How does that add anything?

reply to post by LordBucket


First off, you're debating things that I never said. I never said experience or perception were not real. Your post is debating against points that were never made.

Secondly, you say because you experience and interaction with matter therefore you can rationalize that external matter exist. Of course you can but that's just a fantasy unless you have scientific evidence that matter has an external existence. One of the reasons why things like the holographic principle is considered is because science can't show that matter exists. So, you can rationalize anything. You can rationalize that you once lived on Mars but without evidence to support this claim it doesn't make any sense.

Third, we know that subatomic particles exist as a wave of probable states outside of observation because of experiments. We know these things through the double slit experiment or the quantum eraser delayed choice experiment.

I know some people don't like it but this is just the way it is. We know the observers choice can determine the outcome of an event even when that choice is delayed. When that subatomic particle isn't being observed it's a wave of probabilities. So when you say you have no way of knowing what's occuring outside of your observation, well science knows. Outside of your observation is a wave of possibilities and there's theories that try to explain why this is the case.

Lastly, I said matter is an illusion of resolution. Matter doesn't exist outside of observation. If you have scientific evidence that matter has an external, objective existence then I would like to see it.

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

 

I like the idea of this holographic/projected
universe, however I just can't wrap my head around it.

In my case, I just don't understand what they're trying to say. We've never known what "matter" is. Describing it as "little balls of stuff" doesn't change anything, because nobody knows what "stuff" is.

Saying that it's a hologram, or an illusion, or "not real" doesn't change anything either. It's just saying "Hey! You know that stuff that you don't know what it is that you think you're experiencing? Well, it's not really stuff! It just looks like stuff!"

How does that add anything?

In a nutshell....everthing that is matter is in fact made up of very small bits of energy. This energy is made manifest through the forces that make up the universe and the one in question is electromagnetism and nuclear force. Nuclear forceis the force that binds these small energy packets into larger packets that are atoms. Electromagnetism is the force that binds the atoms together to make objects. The reason we cant pass our bodies through solid stuctures is because electromagnetism repels a foreign electromagnetic field. When you touch something you are feeling the electrical repulsion between the electrons surrounding atoms in your finger and electrons in atoms in what you are touching.
The reason why science cant explain matter as we know it is because none of these forces gives the atoms mass. This is the so so called God particle that science is looking for and thats why the cern collider was built.

[edit on 16/6/2010 by loner007]

Originally posted by loner007
So in order for this theory to work means we have to acknowledge that an observer needs to be present and that means that the universe itself is the observer and it has to be intelligent in order for all those bits not to run amok and that life as we know it is an extension of that same observer manipulating all the bits......

Exactly, I always say if we are intelligent and aware then the universe must be intelligent and aware because we can't be something the universe is not.

reply to post by Matrix Rising


Nice thread. I have long been interested in the VR arguments.

Here is a philosophical argument for the same conclusion, note that this one relies only on logic, and not on physics.

www.simulation-argument.com...

This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences of this result are also discussed.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Illusionsaregrander]

So what is RU made of? More pixels? Is it pixels all the way down?

How could we ever know what RU is made of?

Originally posted by loner007
When you touch something you are feeling the electrical repulsion between the electrons surrounding atoms in your finger and electrons in atoms in what you are touching.

Okay, but how does the knowledge of this change the experience in any way?

How does this knowledge change anything on a practical level?

I mean, you're telling me that I'm never actually connecting with anything because the repulsion between electrons is too strong; but, isn't this always the case? Doesn't no two atom's electrons ever occupy the same space-time without colliding and possibly forming some type of nuclear reaction?

I just don't understand why we can't realize this is just a matter of scale, and both are equally happening at once. People make the bizarre claims. They say that since the world works this way on this scale, that must be understood on another. How is that logical?

Why can't all of these stings exist on the nano-level, and all of these electrons exist on the micro level, and all of these objects exist at the macro level, and all of this is happening all at once, and none of these experiences in any way, shape, or form have any application to the other?

Is that so hard to accept?

Why do people find the need to make these bizarre conclusions like the material world doesn't even exist?

What is reality? Isn't it the integral between intersubjectivity and interobjectivity?

If so, doesn't a single individuals perspective not really matter in the grand scheme?

reply to post by loner007


Bingo again,

Nobody has ever touched matter. You don't touch a table or you don't touch a pillow, you just perceive a force that tells you if something is hard or soft.

It's just like taste. We don't taste food, we smell it and our brain tells us how something should taste based on the smell. This is why when you have a stuffy nose everything taste the same. So when you eat that slice of pizza with everything on it, your brain turns all those smells into something you perceive as a slice of pizza.

Have you ever wondered why food loses its flavor when you have a cold? It's not your taste buds' fault. Blame your stuffed-up nose. Seventy to seventy-five percent of what we perceive as taste actually comes from our sense of smell. Taste buds allow us to perceive only bitter, salty, sweet, and sour flavors. It's the odor molecules from food that give us most of our taste sensation.

www.newtonsapple.tv...

Perception is reality and this all leads back to the Observer.

reply to post by loner007

In a nutshell

Ok. But how do you reconcile that description with the idea that the universe is a projection/hologram/etc?

You appear to be saying that matter = energy, and that energy interacts with energy in various ways.

Where does the hologram come in? Where is the projection? You're still assuming an external that interacts with other externals, you're simply substituting a matter external with an energy external.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

you're debating things that I never said.

No, I'm providing a context that makes sense to me, because yours doesn't make sense to me.

I never said experience or perception were not real.

I didn't say that you made such a claim. You stated that there is no evidence that matter exists. And I accepted that, and proceeded from something that we do have evidence that it exists.

There was no point in arguing the lack of evidence for the existence of matter becaues I agree with you that there isn't. But I don't understand how you go from "no evidence of matter" to "matter is a projection."

you say because you experience and interaction with matter
therefore you can rationalize that external matter exist.

No, that's completely not what I said. I will quote myself for you:

LordBucket said:
I have no way of knowing if anything outside my observation exists or not.
Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. But how would I know?

LordBucket said:
I can't know if the nature of my observation is an
interaction with some sort of external

LordBucket said:
Rationalizing experience as interaction with external
"matter" is merely one possible interpretation

I think I made it extremely clear that I don't assume an external matter exists.

we know that subatomic particles exist as a wave of probable
states outside of observation because of experiments.

How can know this? I suggest that this is simply one possible interpretation.

When that subatomic particle isn't being observed it's a wave of probabilities. So when you say you have no way of knowing what's occuring outside of your observation, well science knows.

...how can you state with such certainty the nature of an existence outside of your ability to observe? Especially when in the context of the discussion, we're accepting the possibility existence might not be possible outside of one's ability to observe?

Matter doesn't exist outside of observation.

How can you know that? I'm not saying that it does. I'm not even saying that matter exists inside of observation. But how can you know that it doesn't?

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by loner007

 

Bingo again,

Nobody has ever touched matter. You don't touch a table or you don't touch a pillow, you just perceive a force that tells you if something is hard or soft.

It's just like taste. We don't taste food, we smell it and our brain tells us how something should taste based on the smell. This is why when you have a stuffy nose everything taste the same. So when you eat that slice of pizza with everything on it, your brain turns all those smells into something you perceive as a slice of pizza.

Have you ever wondered why food loses its flavor when you have a cold? It's not your taste buds' fault. Blame your stuffed-up nose. Seventy to seventy-five percent of what we perceive as taste actually comes from our sense of smell. Taste buds allow us to perceive only bitter, salty, sweet, and sour flavors. It's the odor molecules from food that give us most of our taste sensation.

www.newtonsapple.tv...

Perception is reality and this all leads back to the Observer.

This is a cop-out.

What is touch, but sensation?

What is taste, but sensation?

What is sight, but sensation?

What is sound, but sensation?

Do these experiences not occur to individuals?

Perception is not reality, this is a weak, and narcissistic way of thinking.

It's a bunch of hooey.


...and no I'm not trolling. I've said my bit. You guys continue on with your naive fantasies.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by unityemissions]

reply to post by LordBucket



Scientists discovered that under certain circumstances subatomic particles such as electrons are able to instantaneously communicate with each other regardless of the distance separating them. It doesn't matter whether they are 10 feet or 10 billion miles apart. This destroys einsteins assertion that nothing can travel faster than light and that led some scientists to think of a hologram.

To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film.

When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose.

Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The holographic Universe use this site to understand the basic principals behind the theory. Otherwise I be having to do several posts.

reply to post by LordBucket


Again, you keep talking about possible interpretations and you have no way of knowing what's occuring outside of your observation, but that's not the case. We know what's occuring. A wave of possibilities. This is not conjecture, this is confirmed in experiments.

If matter having an external, objective existence is one interpretation then you need to present evidence to support this.

One interpretation of what? I don't understand what your talking about. You keep talking about one interpretation of this and one interpretation of that but what are you talking about? You say you don't know what's occuring outside of observation but why don't you know? It's been written about in peer reviewed journals and experiments have confirmed this.

There's wishful thinking done by materialist but outside of that I don't see what your talking about..

just to post this for you.
If your interested in this theory, watch this guys take 1 to 44.
p.s he never blinks and hes very hairy.

He says its a solution to all.
video.google.com...

Google Video Link

www.youtube.com...





[edit on 16-6-2010 by chimproo]